It has colored text,many many many Bible references and some embedded videos. It seems to be short a reference section, bibliography but maybe he is putting that at the end. ? I cant say I have seen an academic paper released in weekly installments.

Sorry, but in what universe is this an academic paper? I've just skimmed it quickly (I'll read over it in more depth tomorrow) but just from a cursory glance it's evident to anyone who has ever attended a place of learning that this would be laughed at if it were submitted to an actual university.

Jason; I know you're reading this because you lurk offline and don't have the balls to have continued discourse without running away crying. This isn't a paper. It wouldn't even be admissible as GCSE coursework, and that's just based on your spelling, grammar and presentation.

Already he's whining about people calling him out on his poor grasp of the written language. Guess our standards were too high, given he continually stated it was a world class academic paper.

He can bleat on about the resurrection all he likes, he's not able to empirically prove it happened because there is no evidence it did. He can cite all the theologians he likes, the only reference point they have is the Bible. I could be picky and state that ultimately he has to empirically prove the existence of God, but it's taken him 3 months to get round to an introduction of this paper.

The first chapter is a mere accusation against atheism and parading AronRa as typical representative.Then a quote from AronRa replying to Engelbert is taken as example of todays 'atheist's cultural argumentation'. And that followed by a vid and further accusing conclusions.

Next there is a very long list of references (rather footnotes whose quotations are completely missing) proving resurrection to be the heart of Christianity.

Second chapter is not much different to the first (further globalized allegations), except that the referenced source, which again you'd have to study yourself, now is from the apologetics.

Third chapter continuse calling out the atheists and invoking the theists to tune in while providing a video example of how to check them out and deliver arguments.

wow - 585 words - nothing but a shameful result from weeks of 'intellectual honest' studies.

Liar, Lunatic or lord has been argued about Jesus, but this question leaves out a huge criterion, Legend. Could Jesus have merely been the works of the other messiahs, plus the actions and deeds of Julius Caesar? Can the deeds that are less than twenty years old have been so stretched that even the people in the Roman Empire would be amazed but not question it. Could the resurrection of Christ never have happened, or been different than what was explained in the gospels. One can not argue the existence of something not existing, this is a fools gambit and one I do not plan to dwell on, instead I will question if there were other, better explanations to the Jesus incident. Paul the father of ChristianityPaul was and is the most influential disciple that never met Jesus. Paul wrote about half of the books of the New Testament. (The Apostle Paul 2006) So he’s influence should be felt throughout the books. If this is the case then the question is, was he a follower of Jesus or was there other motives to birth a new religion for him. One could suppose that Saul was using his influence as a way to alter Judaism and prevent Rome from whipping it out with military force, but was there any evidence to believe that Rome wanted to get rid of the Jewish religion? Yes several times in Israel’s short history with Rome had the little nation felt the fist of Rome, And after Rome started putting the leaders up in the temple many Hebrews resented Rome even more “Rome took over the appointment of the High Priest (a turn of events that the ancient Jews appreciated as much as modern Catholics would have appreciated Mussolini appointing the popes)” (Jewish literacy 1991) Could Paul have created a religion to placate the desire of Hebrews to openly revolt against the emperor?

Anyone wanting to read the paper, minus several spelling errors and minus 'academic' inclusions such as YouTube videos can do so below.

Atheism and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This paper is dedicated to the Atheist community. For a number of months I have studied the atheist community trying to see what they teach. One thing that comes to my mind is they are full of zeal in telling us we have no evidence for the Christian faith. This paper is a rough draft of a book I hope to submit to be published. It seeks to show that we do have evidence for the Christian faith. This evidence is seen in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Let us see what one atheist says about Christianity. The famous Atheist AronRa is typical of what the atheists have been saying on the world wide web these last few years.

There are some notable scholars among the 'fringe' who disagree with you, and they have good reasons why they disagree. Among my associates are Dr Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald, both friends of mine who offer substantial challenges to the notion of an historical Jesus.

To quote AronRa

“Allow me to clarify: Christianity proposes 1. that there is a god2. that there is only one complete deity among a host of other subordinate entities bordering on the divine, angels, demons, 'the devil', etc.3. that some aspect of humans exists as an immortal immaterial soul.4. that there is a supernatural spirit world.5. that this supernatural realm is divided into at least two major divisions, being Heaven & Hell.6. that Heaven is a place of splendid euphoria and Hell is subterranean prison of perpetual torture.7. that Jesus is the sole prophet of, only son of, or gateway to God, if not an avatar of God and thus god himself "made flesh".8. those who declare a belief in Jesus as their 'savior' in this capacity will ascend to Heaven after they die.9. that those who are not convinced that Jesus is the prophet, son of, or gateway to -God will be damned to endure agony for eternity.10. that for reasons which make no sense at all, Jesus died on the cross with the specific intent of appeasing himself so that he could forgive himself for the infallible error of making us prone to error in his image, to atone for our being the way he made us to be, and to punish us for learning right from wrong -even though we obviously couldn't have known right from wrong before then.

That's a summary. Not all of it is constant through every branch of Christianity, but most of it is consistent among nearly all the major denominations. You have provided absolutely no evidence of any of the above. Consequently it is likely all complete horseshit. As there is absolutely no evidence for ANY of the above, what other conclusion could we draw?You said you had at least shown evidence that some lowly cult-leader named Yeshua bar Yosseff *might* have been crucified at some indeterminable point in the 1st Century, a time when no one recorded any hours of darkness during the day time, and no undead saints shambling around Judea either. You failed to show that a purely human rebel rabbi ever got his name recorded by any of his contemporaries. But even if you had shown that -which you say you did, the best you would have shown would have been an historical Jesus; you still would not have shown a Biblical Jesus, nor would you have shown support for ANY of the various claims made by Christianity above. You haven't shown that there even a THERE there. You haven't shown any evidence of Christianity at all, because there isn't any.”[1]

These kind of arguments are the milk and drink of the atheist culture today. Many young people are taken in by people like AronRa. These atheists not only say these things they have invested allot of time trying to push this message on the web. Take a look at this video one of tens of thousands that these atheists are producing.

Notice what AronRa does not do. He does not aim his guns at the main issue with Christianity. What is the main issue? That is the Christian faith claims Jesus died. and had a resurrection from the dead. If atheists can show Jesus did not die on a cross and he did not rise again then they have won the argument. Christians can provide evidence that Jesus did do so then the Christians win the debate. The debate is won or lost on these great pillars. If you knock the pillars down you win if you can't you lose. You cannot defeat Christianity unless you destroy the heart of Christianity. Atheists Scholars often will run away from this challenge. They attack Christianity round the edges but they fear to go to the main issue. If you doubt if the resurrection is at the heart of Christianity have a look at these scriptures and see how central the resurrection is. [2]

As we can see form all these texts the core of Christianity is the resurrection of Christ.Now you will find very little in Atheist scholarship or in the atheist blogs on this subject .What they tend to do is attack the Old Testament or talk about how Christianity is against Science. If Atheist scholars like DR Richard Carrier do take on the subject they use scholarship that is 70 years out of date . This is a major problem for the atheist scholarly community and the blog sphere. They have not got up to date scholarship on this topic and they do not want you to know how modern scholarship has been confirming the Death and Resurrection of Christ. Over the next ten weeks I hope to introduce you to this amazing scholarship that gives solid evidence for the truth of Christianity. Before I do I just want to labour this point as it is so vital to this debate.

You can't prove Christianity is not the truth unless to debunk the resurrection of Christ.Once again it is the central core of the faith.

"In calling attention to this preoccupation with the atonement, my purpose is not to challenge the validity and necessity of this development, far less to call into question the conclusions reached. I wish to point out that the dominating interest in the death of Christ has had associated with it a relative neglect of the resurrection".

"For Paul, "life" in the soteriological sense [...] is grounded specifically in the resurrection of Jesus and it's manifestation is always an expression of that resurrection. Life for Paul is pointedly resurrection-life. Resurrection with Christ involves an existential component. The believer's continuing walk in newness of life is based upon resurrection with Christ as that has taken place in his actual life history. Baptism signifies and seals a transition into the experience of the recipient a transition from being (existentially) apart from Christ to being (existentially) joined to Him. The resurrection is not an aspect or component of the death. Rather ... each has a meaning of its own which is suppressed at the risk of seriously distorting Paul's Gospel".

The resurrection is the salvation of Jesus as the last Adam; it and no other event in His experience is the point of His transition from wrath to grace. Strictly speaking not Christ's death but His resurrection (that is His exaltation) marks the completion of the once-for-all accomplishment of redemption

In fact only by virtue of His resurrection is His death, a dying to sin. A soteriology structured so it moves directly from the death of Christ to the application to others of the benefits purchased by that death, substantially short-circuits Paul's own point of view. This does not imply that Paul compromises the absolute necessity and intrinsic efficacy of Christ's death (as an atonement). It does mean however that he does not confuse the ransom price, no matter how sublime and precious with what is secured by it's payment".

[3]

Notice that Dr Gaffin Jr shows how even Theologians have neglected the resurrection in theological discourse.If Theologians can do so how much more the Atheists?We need to be intellectually honest and deal with the real Challenges of Christianity and not hide by out modded easy target arguments that are emotional or pray on peoples ignorance.This is the stock and trade of these modern atheists.It is time we called them out.

Perhaps I am being overly judgmental, but going by the first couple of lines, it doesn't read at all like a "paper".

I don't think we should sully the title of academic paper by referring to this blog post as such.

That doesn't mean I am dismissing the content out of hand, I haven't read it yet and it might prove to be an interesting blog post. But the structure, writing style and referencing style is usually very specific in papers and this article doesn't meet those standards.

This paper is dedicated to the Atheist community. For a number of months I have studied the atheist community trying to see what they teach.

Pedagogy is neither the vocation of all atheists, nor necessarily their purview. Assumption one dismissed.

One thing that comes to my mind is they are full of zeal in telling us we have no evidence for the Christian faith.

I'm an atheist, yet not full of zeal in telling you that you have no evidence for the Christian faith. Assumption two dismissed.

This paper is a rough draft of a book I hope to submit to be published.

It's already published. See: the web.

It seeks to show that we do have evidence for the Christian faith.

Let's go!

This evidence is seen in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Oh lordy...

Let us see what one atheist says about Christianity.

Why? Are you going to extrapolate from this one example?

The famous Atheist AronRa is typical of what the atheists have been saying on the world wide web these last few years.

Is he? I've been using the web for over a decade and my experience (if we're qualifying our arguments by this measure) is that activity of, what I shall refer to as anti-theists, is limited, although likely not exclusively, to the newly de-faithed (sorry for the tortured adjective). It's pretty much the same symptom exhibited by n00bs who discover Linux Mint and proceed to troll Windows users. Some even move on to Arch Linux (the distribution for the fundamentally inclined). It seems to me, on the face of it, that you tend to frequent hubs of Arch-atheists.

Normally I wouldn't point out a pun unless it was deeply unfunny, but in this case, I hope you enjoy it.

There are some notable scholars among the 'fringe' who disagree with you, and they have good reasons why they disagree. Among my associates are Dr Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald, both friends of mine who offer substantial challenges to the notion of an historical Jesus.

Your sentence, with its name-drops, seems to imply your associates challenge the efficacy of Jesus' historicity. Is that intentional?

To quote AronRa

“Allow me to clarify: Christianity proposes 1. that there is a god 2. that there is only one complete deity among a host of other subordinate entities bordering on the divine, angels, demons, 'the devil', etc. 3. that some aspect of humans exists as an immortal immaterial soul. 4. that there is a supernatural spirit world. 5. that this supernatural realm is divided into at least two major divisions, being Heaven & Hell. 6. that Heaven is a place of splendid euphoria and Hell is subterranean prison of perpetual torture. 7. that Jesus is the sole prophet of, only son of, or gateway to God, if not an avatar of God and thus god himself "made flesh". 8. those who declare a belief in Jesus as their 'savior' in this capacity will ascend to Heaven after they die. 9. that those who are not convinced that Jesus is the prophet, son of, or gateway to -God will be damned to endure agony for eternity. 10. that for reasons which make no sense at all, Jesus died on the cross with the specific intent of appeasing himself so that he could forgive himself for the infallible error of making us prone to error in his image, to atone for our being the way he made us to be, and to punish us for learning right from wrong -even though we obviously couldn't have known right from wrong before then.

That's a summary. Not all of it is constant through every branch of Christianity, but most of it is consistent among nearly all the major denominations. You have provided absolutely no evidence of any of the above. Consequently it is likely all complete horseshit. As there is absolutely no evidence for ANY of the above, what other conclusion could we draw?You said you had at least shown evidence that some lowly cult-leader named Yeshua bar Yosseff *might* have been crucified at some indeterminable point in the 1st Century, a time when no one recorded any hours of darkness during the day time, and no undead saints shambling around Judea either. You failed to show that a purely human rebel rabbi ever got his name recorded by any of his contemporaries. But even if you had shown that -which you say you did, the best you would have shown would have been an historical Jesus; you still would not have shown a Biblical Jesus, nor would you have shown support for ANY of the various claims made by Christianity above. You haven't shown that there even a THERE there. You haven't shown any evidence of Christianity at all, because there isn't any.”[1]

These kind of arguments are the milk and drink of the atheist culture today.

Lol, the what? I love malapropisms.

Many young people are taken in by people like AronRa.

The implication that AronRa (and by extension his arguments), is a negative influence has not yet been established. Stating it as such this early on bodes ill. Mainly because it is another argument entirely, and one you'd be hard-pressed to show.

These atheists

Which ones? The shy, reserved ones? The tall, dark and handsome ones?

[. . .]not only say these things they have invested allot of time trying to push this message on the web. Take a look at this video one of tens of thousands that these atheists are producing.

Your limited dataset is showing, you might want to zip up.

Notice what AronRa does not do. He does not aim his guns at the main issue with Christianity.

Its inherent flaws?

What is the main issue? That is the Christian faith claims Jesus died. and had a resurrection from the dead. If atheists can show Jesus did not die on a cross and he did not rise again then they have won the argument.

Christians can provide evidence that Jesus did do so then the Christians win the debate.

Grammar aside, okies.

The debate is won or lost on these great pillars.

Let's call them Jachin and Boaz.

If you knock the pillars down you win if you can't you lose.

One has to knock them both over?

You cannot defeat Christianity unless you destroy the heart of Christianity.

What's with all the aggression? Isn't this supposed to be an academic paper? I take your meaning, but emotive language is inappropriate.

Atheists Scholars often will run away from this challenge.

So is this about atheist scholars? Is that the sub-group we became aware of up-screen?

They attack Christianity round the edges but they fear to go to the main issue.

There is no basis, given what we know about biology, for belief in the resurrection. There you go. Head on. In the balls.

If you doubt if the resurrection is at the heart of Christianity have a look at these scriptures and see how central the resurrection is.

I do not dispute this point.

As we can see form all these texts the core of Christianity is the resurrection of Christ.

So you've said.

Now you will find very little in Atheist scholarship

What in the seven names of Barry Manilow is "atheist scholarship"?

[. . .]or in the atheist blogs on this subject .

Odd. A cursory google search for the terms atheist, blog, and resurrection, turn up dozens of pages. So, I must ask you to refine your term very little.

Thanks.

What they tend to do is attack the Old Testament or talk about how Christianity is against Science.

Those are only two of the ways to approach Christianity employed and they are by no means the general tendency. However, many Christians, at least on the creationist side, i.e. the ones more likely to argue on YouTube, implicitly endorse the idea that the OT is entirely valid and therefore it is, understandably, often the focus of those discussions.

If Atheist scholars like DR Richard Carrier do take on the subject they use scholarship that is 70 years out of date .

Christianity is thousands of years out of date.

This subject is philosophical by its very nature, so the age of the "scholarship" is irrelevant.

This is a major problem for the atheist scholarly community and the blog sphere.

Hardly. You assert the resurrection happened, the burden lies with you. This is painfully simple to comprehend; it shouldn't even have to be said.

They have not got up to date scholarship on this topic and they do not want you to know how modern scholarship has been confirming the Death and Resurrection of Christ.

I'm all ears.

Over the next ten weeks I hope to introduce you to this amazing scholarship that gives solid evidence for the truth of Christianity.

So this is what, a foreword? What the fuck?

Before I do I just want to labour this point as it is so vital to this debate.

You can't prove Christianity is not the truth unless to debunk the resurrection of Christ.

This argument had already failed the moment it was vomited.

Once again it is the central core of the faith.

Yawn.

"In calling attention to this preoccupation with the atonement, my purpose is not to challenge the validity and necessity of this development, far less to call into question the conclusions reached. I wish to point out that the dominating interest in the death of Christ has had associated with it a relative neglect of the resurrection".

"For Paul, "life" in the soteriological sense [...] is grounded specifically in the resurrection of Jesus and it's manifestation is always an expression of that resurrection. Life for Paul is pointedly resurrection-life. Resurrection with Christ involves an existential component. The believer's continuing walk in newness of life is based upon resurrection with Christ as that has taken place in his actual life history. Baptism signifies and seals a transition into the experience of the recipient a transition from being (existentially) apart from Christ to being (existentially) joined to Him. The resurrection is not an aspect or component of the death. Rather ... each has a meaning of its own which is suppressed at the risk of seriously distorting Paul's Gospel".

The resurrection is the salvation of Jesus as the last Adam; it and no other event in His experience is the point of His transition from wrath to grace. Strictly speaking not Christ's death but His resurrection (that is His exaltation) marks the completion of the once-for-all accomplishment of redemption

In fact only by virtue of His resurrection is His death, a dying to sin. A soteriology structured so it moves directly from the death of Christ to the application to others of the benefits purchased by that death, substantially short-circuits Paul's own point of view. This does not imply that Paul compromises the absolute necessity and intrinsic efficacy of Christ's death (as an atonement). It does mean however that he does not confuse the ransom price, no matter how sublime and precious with what is secured by it's payment".

[3]

Notice that Dr Gaffin Jr shows how even Theologians have neglected the resurrection in theological discourse.

I notice the assertion, yes.

If Theologians can do so how much more the Atheists?

It isn't just atheists who discuss the implausibility of the resurrection.

We need to be intellectually honest and deal with the real Challenges of Christianity and not hide by out modded easy target arguments that are emotional or pray on peoples ignorance.

Pot, Kettle, you're both unwelcome in this house.

This is the stock and trade of these modern atheists.It is time we called them out.

It's stock in trade, and atheist isn't a proper noun. It's time I pointed at least some of this out (before my head explodes).

Prolescum, just a teensie-weensie error in reading for comprehension - probably due to your mind trying to stop you taking it in....

Prolescum wrote:

Jason101 wrote:There are some notable scholars among the 'fringe' who disagree with you, and they have good reasons why they disagree. Among my associates are Dr Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald, both friends of mine who offer substantial challenges to the notion of an historical Jesus.

Your sentence, with its name-drops, seems to imply your associates challenge the efficacy of Jesus' historicity. Is that intentional?

Actually, the embedded quote was what Aron had said - not Jason! Aron knows both Dr. Carrier and Mr Fitzgerald.

Kindest regards,

James

"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."The Age Of Reason

My copy of OpenOffice almost imploded whilst trying to correct the spelling errors.

Why on earth would you either want, or need to correct spelling errors in a 'world class' paper Austalopithecus?

Whilst I appreciate your obviously well-intentioned efforts in the matter, I feel that the true magnificence of Jason's scholarly undertaking can only be fully appreciated if it is presented as originally published by the great man himself.

Post hoc editing in order to better suit the sensibilities of readers on this forum can only serve to obscure the true flavour of Jason's original work, and doing so is to my mind tantamount to blasphemy.

Jason Burns wrote:What is the main issue? That is the Christian faith claims Jesus died. and had a resurrection from the dead. If atheists can show Jesus did not die on a cross and he did not rise again then they have won the argument.

It is not possible for a human being to be dead for three days and then come back to life. Either he did not actually die on the cross and thus was not resurrected, or he did die on the cross and did not not get resurrected.

When a person make an impossible claim, another person does not need to provide provide evidence to refute said claim. Until someone provides evidence that the claim of the resurrection is actually possible, there is no need to refute it because the statement of "thats not possible." is sufficient.

Do I win now?

Jason Burns wrote:Atheists Scholars often will run away from this challenge.

Actually they don't run away from it, they ignore it because when your response to "how did this happen" is the fully untestable "A miracle occurred" there is nowhere to go from there. This is why scientific theories must be falsifiable.

Jason Burns wrote:What they tend to do is attack the Old Testament or talk about how Christianity is against Science.

Well according to you the core tenet of Christianity is the Resurrection, which is scientifically impossible, so by your own admission Christianity is against science.

Jason Burns wrote:Over the next ten weeks I hope to introduce you to this amazing scholarship that gives solid evidence for the truth of Christianity.

I am still impressed in a small way that creationists manage to take so long and waste so much space to say "magic did it."

You can't prove Christianity is not the truth unless to debunk the resurrection of Christ.

Once again it is impossible for a human being to be dead for 3 days and then come back to life. Resurrection debunked, victory is mine.

Contrary to popular belief, full-immersion holographic sex will not destroy society.

I understand your pain Australopithecus. However, cleaning up after obnoxious, disruptive, and repeatedly unruly children is perhaps not the best way to go about encouraging them to change their behaviour.

Jason has been arrogantly boasting, for months now, about how his 'academic paper' will be one of the most unassailably brilliant pieces of scholarly literature to emerge during the modern era.

He has been gleefully and thoughtlessly flinging his own poo around the community cage, and he should therefore be the one responsible for cleaning it up.

Did I misunderstand his paper or is he using the Bible as evidence ? Wouldn't he first have to show the accuracy of each of those Bible quotes ? When did color coding a quote become an accepted method ?

Jay , a space after a period is kind of essential within a paragraph. Spell check (open office has one) flags all occurrences as a misspelled word.

fyi, a nock is the notched thing on the end of an arrow. As a verb it refers to placing the arrow on the bow string in preparation to fire.